I've just read it. I like a laugh!They must have a collection of tame launch attendees, I think I 've missed the bit where the CEO says they are all ver excited. The quote from the alleged response doesn't ie in too well with some of the GA observations.
This is good news for all aspiring new pilots. It's great to see Cessna continuing to lead GA in equiping and training new pilots. Kudos to Cessna management for being willing to take a calculated risk. I, for one, think it's a great decision. Congratulations Cessna!
Obviously likes airborne tractor engines. They've apparently moved away from the original intention of having a composite and gone back to aluminum; sorry, aluminium.
It't really looks ground breaking, like a slightly shrunken C152."It's great to see Cessna continuing to lead GA in equiping and training new pilots"...how do you spell Cirrus in morse?
The French re launch of the VLA Lionceau, and the uprated Lion, look far more modern and were designed in the 1990s.
Gerry Winskill bones wrote:
Oddly enough this debate is going on in Prune right now.Cessna have just launched a new aircraft - the C162 Skycatcher - and nice looking it is too. Basically a C150 on diet pills. See http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/ for piccies - especially the cockpit shots. It looks a nice modern aircraft, but Cessna have decided that the engine to go in it is the venerable O-200-A, built in 1948 and about as basic as a mangle. The Prune debate is hotting up with most of the battle raging around Cessna's concern for public liability being the reason why they shied away from new, fuel efficient designs - old engines predate the laws and are exempt. I tend to agree in that GA design has evolved very slowly in the last 30 years whereas any other form of transport hasn't allowed PL to significantly affect development. The engine in your car is so much more advanced than a basic aero engine - the O-200A still has a carb and magnetos instead of fuel injection and electric ignition. This makes it liable to carb icing and magneto failure with both being mechanical devices with wear and tear being additional problems. If they had banged an O-200-A in with electric ignition and fuel injection I would have considered it a step forward.. bones-----Original Message----- *From:* jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Alex Barrett *Sent:* 18 August 2007 14:23 *To:* jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* [jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals The local flying club issued planning tables for their C-152 fleet Gives: Full power climb = 8.7 GPH Cruise = 4.2GPH So if we take a typical VFR flight from Shoreham to Lydd on a sunny summer day = 10 minutes at full power =1.45 Gallons 30 mins in the cruise and decending = 2.34 Gallons Plus a bit for farting about = 1.00 Gallon Gives 3.791 Gallons all used. Perhaps an email suggestion to IVAO to bring the minimum down? or I guess they just don't have many VA's on VFR ops! All the best, Alex Assuming a quick 5 minute climb franklyn fisher wrote:As a matter of interest. I was flying a C172SP cruising 100 (cannot get the damn thing up to the rated 120). Departure X2BS to FSWB (Binstead-Swanborough)= 44nm. Recorded fuel in tank, before departure and at arrival, 19L used =4 Gallons rough translation. Could not get Pirep to accept L or less than 6G Next flight from FSWB to Clipgate. A slip of the keys. I think I uprated Chris from C2 to C3. hit the send button too soon. FF